In France, there is no fracking for gas. Although potentially huge reserves of gas are 2,500 meters underground. Fanatical self-proclaimed “ecologists” have seen to it. Seen to it, that the treasure trove below be left untouched. They are presumably proud of the 11%+ unemployment rate.
Instead of having French Muslim youth fracking for fuel around Paris, they can directly frack Parisians to fuel their anger.
In the USA, there is plenty of fracking. That divided the price of “natural gas” (the notorious methane, CH4) by four (so the price of natural gas, in the USA, is 25% of what it used to be). Methane is less CO2 producing, by unit of energy, than other fossil fuel, because it has relatively less carbon, C, and more hydrogen, H. Obama calls methane a “bridge fuel”, as he argued that CH4 will provide plenty of energy, as one switches to clean, sustainable energy sources.
For once, in a deployed strategy, Obama was right. It had an added bonus of demolishing the coal industry in the USA. Obama helped by inciting the EPA (Environment Protection Agency, Nixon’s baby) to crack down on coal.
American patriotism would be silly, except for one thing: it works. It just does not work psychologically, binding Americans together. It works, like in 5% unemployment rate (3% in San Francisco Bay Area, the main engine of the USA).
Fracking is not very controversial in the USA. Massive fracking is generally outlawed in populated areas, such as California, and authorized in far away places, in the so-called “flyover country” (whatever is between the left and right coasts). Nobody cares very much about what happens in gigantic states with tiny populations: Wyoming, a very fracking state, has less than one percent (1%) of the population of Great Britain, yet, a larger area (Wyoming is 112% of the area of the UK). And the fracking is not where the population is. The West already has places with names such as “Badwater”.
Fracking, studies (paid by potential frackers) show, would bring at least 100,000 well paid job in France. In recent years the USA has drilled no less than 500,000 fracked wells, and the jobs brought, mostly indirectly, are in the millions.
Implicit patriotism is why fracking is not controversial enough in the USA to stop it. Whereas in France, the French Socialist president, hounded by an astronomically cruel unemployment rate, and infuriated youth out to kill, has thrown fracking out of hand.
Why is fracking not very controversial in the USA? Because Americans need lots of energy to run their (rather inefficient) economy. Elon Musk’s Tesla is building a “gigafactory” in Nevada (Nevada is 120% of the area of the UK, while having only 5% of the population of the UK). The idea is to build something so enormous, it would bring down the price of Lithium batteries by a third, from economies of scale. Now it requires lots of energy to build, and feed such an enormous enterprise. .
Energy now provided by fracking. Tesla is selling batteries for solar homes to store the electricity produced by solar cells. As California homes are getting covered with solar cells (thanks to legally enforced advantageous feedback of homeowners’ electricity to the giant electric utilities)
I was watching a representative of Greenpeace France, raging against France for being bad for climate. Why? Because, although France pollutes with only 6 tons of CO2 per inhabitant per year, this is caused ny French nuclear plants. Greenpeace France instead lauds Germany, where 50% of electrical energy comes from coal, the energy creating the most CO2.
Greenpeace fanatical opposition to nuclear energy is religious. And a superstition. “Nuclear” seems equated to satanic. Never mind that “nuclear” made life on Earth possible, and creates solar energy (though the Sun’s thermonuclear activity).
Ecology, Greenpeace France’s style is basically a show by ignorant twerps whose business model is to ss for passionate and learned on TV. So I am saying that such “ecologists” are devoured by ambition (they want to be on TV), they are also ignorant (like Jihadists), but they want to pass for all-knowing (like Jihadists who know Allah), and passionate (they can exhibit hatred: of nuclear energy, just as Jihadists do with “unbelievers” and “idolaters”).
Thus they have those pseudo-ecologists have the best of all possible worlds: although they were not passionate enough to learn science (or learn things in general, the same problem as with Jihadists), they can masquerade as passionate creatures with deep knowledge (by showing the certainty of their hatred of something).
But the real question Americans have for them, deep down inside: are they patriotic enough? And what’s wrong with France, if they hate it so much?
It’s all and good to be against fracking (as I am) and against nuclear (as Greenpeace is). But, absent a ferocious research program in applied new energies, the alternative is dire. The alternative is buying gas from Putin, coal from Merkel (as done presently, presumably to Greenpeace’s satisfaction). Or then, to see France get ever poorer, and less relevant, and the rest of Europe converting into a youth hotel for Muslim refugees in love with Islamism.
The rise of the Political Correctness a la Greenpeace France (deeply anti-French) led to the present situation on university campuses in the USA where no controversial subject can be mouthed anymore.
The fact that today’s youth cannot take part in healthy debates involving the slightest controversies mean that they are heading towards the lowest possible moral category. Fleeing controversies and debate at all cost fosters the very mood, secrecy, and avoidance of any difficulty, which enabled Nazism and its attendant secrecy. So PC youth are proto-Nazis in their deepest soul.
Those who flee debates don’t just suffer from ignorance (as many Jihadists do), they ask for it. So they ask for Auschwitz.
Mentalities can grow and endure, making their own genetics. In Switzerland, two half-cantons, Obwald and Nidwald, Sharing the same canton, have been fighting for as long as can be remembered, and have different personalities. Genetic studies just showed that the half-canton to the West was peopled by Celts from West France, England and Ireland, whereas the half-canton to the east was people by Germans from North Germany. Over the millennia, the difference in mentalities (what come with moods), endured.
The parties in power in many European countries (Britain may be an exception) have made national priorities secondary. That would be excellent, if it were only to build a supranational EUROPEAN entity. However, instead of doing that, the quick expansion of the European Union to 28 members has constituted an ensemble weak in governance, thus easily manipulated by international plutocracy (to whom one can argue even Greenpeace belongs, as it seems more anxious for power than logic). More than 20,000 registered lobbyists have permanent residency in Brussels, hounding European Deputies (including Marine Le Pen and other anti-EU Members of the European Parliament).
The result is that the populations of the EU member states are not taken care of. So far only the leading party in Greece governs with an anti-austerity mood. All other 27 nations’ government practice “austerity” (money and power to financial types, not enough for anybody else). But only Iceland (not a member of EU, but of Schengen Area) has jailed bankers.
However, this may change tomorrow, when Spain votes: “Podemos” (“We can!”) may make its presence felt. “Podemos” is anti-austerity. I am all for it. “Austerity” is, mostly, an other word for plutocracy.
In France the LRPS (pronounced L’Herpes; hey, I made that up myself!) is the unholy union of the Socialists (PS) and the right wing “Les Republicains” (a copy of the American ones, minus the hands on the hearts). L’Herpes is all for austerity. Except now Parisian soirées, from having starved the military, the secret services, and lauded Literal Islam, while refusing to give the youth work, have turned into mayhem, with 500 killed or wounded in a few minutes.
The resource in France has a finite shelf life. If the CH4 under French soil is not used soon, it will never be used. Indeed, when sea level is one meter up (which is virtually certain within half a century), burning carbon will be outlawed (except as a legacy activity, perhaps). When much of France is a vast polder, nobody will want to invest massively to burn more carbon (even if it is in attenuated form).
If you want austerity, you cannot be for sustainable energy, as it costs energy and spending (as the USA deployed, and is deploying some more) to build the sustainable infrastructure.
By claiming that the principle of purity of French soil is more precious than worrying about infuriated unemployed Muslim youth, the French government treacherously and not so stealthily contribute to Jihad, by deliberately provoking unemployed Muslim youth.
Diabolization is a powerful instrument. For example I diabolize plutocracy (naturally enough). However, instead of doing this, the diabolization of truly diabolic forces, authorities in France have diabolized the National Front, or fracking, or working as much as one wants, or those who fear Literal Islam, or Genetically Modified Organisms, etc. Both phenomena are related (in a conservation law of diabolization).
So do you want austerity, and die, or be enslaved, or do you want to change regime, and mentality? It should not be too hard to decide. Podemos!